Meghan E. George (SBN 274525) LAW OFFICES OF TODD M ... · Defendant VIVID SEATS, LLC is a Delaware corporation and headquartered in Illinois. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Todd M. Friedman (SBN 216752) Adrian R. Bacon (SBN 280332) Meghan E. George (SBN 274525) Thomas E. Wheeler (SBN 308789) LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD GIESEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. VIVID SEATS LLC, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, Defendant.

Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (1) Violation of the California False

Advertising Act (Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq.); and

(2) Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.).

Jury Trial Demanded

Case 4:18-cv-01776-YGR Document 1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 20

Page 1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff TODD GIESEA (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other

members of the public similarly situated, allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this class action Complaint against Defendant VIVID

SEATS, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant”) to stop Defendant’s practice of falsely

advertising the nature, quality, and price of its tickets and to obtain redress for a

California class of consumers (“Class Members”) who changed position, within

the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of Defendant’s false and

misleading advertisements.

2. Defendant is a corporation with principal place of business in Illinois

and state of incorporation in Delaware and is engaged in the sale and marketing of

event tickets on the internet.

3. Defendant represents that it sells presale tickets for various events and

does not engage in speculative selling of tickets, when this is in fact false.

Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised to Plaintiff and other similarly

situated consumers their service (hereinafter “Class Products”).

4. Plaintiff and others similarly situated utilized or attempt to utilize

Defendant’s service, and they did so on the basis that Defendant said that it sells

tickets for events and does not engage in any speculative selling.

5. Defendant’s misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly

situated caused them to utilize or attempt Defendant’s service, which Plaintiff and

others similarly situated would not have utilized or attempted to utilize absent

these misrepresentations by Defendant and its employees. In so doing, Defendant

has violated California consumer protection statutes, including the Unfair

Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.

NATURE OF THE CASE & COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

6. Consumers purchase Defendant’s pre-sale tickets advertised to be of


Page 2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a certain nature and quality, and in the case at bar, it did so under the impression

that consumers are purchasing available tickets for a particular event for a set price

and not a speculative one.

7. Consumers rely on the representations and advertisements of online

ticket retailers in order to know the price of tickets for the different events

advertised. Details as to the nature and quality of the service, such as whether the

tickets are actually available to be purchased at the time purchased, are important

and material to consumers at the time they purchase said tickets for the event, as

consumers are sensitive to the nature and quality of the price they pay for the

tickets for the events they wish to enjoy.

8. Defendant is engaged in the, marketing, supplying, and distributing

of pre-sale tickets for various events that are worth far less than advertised by

Defendant, and the true nature and quality of the ticket value is neither disclosed

to consumers nor discoverable by the same at the time of purchase.

9. When consumers purchase the tickets from Defendant, they

reasonably believe that they are actually purchasing tickets from the ticket

purchasing service, that are of the nature and quality that was advertised and

disclosed at the time they agree to purchase said product.

10. Defendant profits from the use of their product. Many consumers

would not have purchased or attempted to purchase tickets through their platform

if they were paying a speculative price, or they would have purchased their tickets

from another competitor.

11. In Plaintiff’s case, Defendant engage in speculative selling tickets for

a particular event, in contradiction with their policy of prohibiting speculative

selling of tickets, which was not disclosed to Plaintiff at the time he purchased the

tickets from Defendant.

12. Defendant conceals the fact that its service is not going to be of the


Page 3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

nature and quality advertised in order to deceive consumers into utilizing their

service that is different from that which is advertised.

13. Defendant does not present consumers with a written copy of the

correct terms of the purchase prior to purchase, in order to conceal the deception

that is at issue in this case.

14. Defendant makes written and oral representations to consumers

which contradict the actual nature and quality of the service that will be delivered

to the consumer after the consumer purchases the service.

15. The aforementioned written and oral representations are objectively

false, and constitute false advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et.

seq. an unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §§ 17200 et. seq.

16. Defendant’s violations of the law include without limitation the false

advertising, marketing, representations, and sale of the falsely advertised Class

Products to consumers in California.

17. On behalf of the class, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring

Defendant to cease advertising and selling the Class Products in a manner that is

deceptive, to disclose the true nature and quality of its services in a conspicuous

manner at or prior to the point of sale, and an award of damages to the Class

Members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiff,

a California resident, seeks relief on behalf of a Class, which will result in at least

one class member belonging to a different state than that of Defendant, a Delaware

Corporation. Plaintiff also seeks damages for each violation alleged herein which,

when aggregated among each member of the class, exceed the $5,000,000.00

threshold for requisite amount in controversy. Therefore, both minimal diversity


Page 4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of citizenship and the amount in controversy requirements are satisfied for

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

19. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendant does

business within this district by selling tickets to California citizens for events

within the State.

THE PARTIES

20. Plaintiff TODD GIESEA is a citizen and resident of the State of

California, County of San Francisco.

21. Defendant VIVID SEATS, LLC is a Delaware corporation and

headquartered in Illinois.

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and

all of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, or is attributable

to, Defendant and/or its employees, agents, and/or third parties acting on its behalf,

each acting as the agent for the other, with legal authority to act on the other’s

behalf. The acts of any and all of Defendant’s employees, agents, and/or third

parties acting on its behalf, were in accordance with, and represent, the official

policy of Defendant.

23. The above named Defendant, and its subsidiaries and agents, are

collectively referred to as “Defendants.” The true names and capacities of the

Defendants sued herein as DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10, inclusive, are

currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious

names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible

for the unlawful acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend

the Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants

when such identities become known.

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said


Page 5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible

for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions of each and all its employees,

agents, and/or third parties acting on its behalf, in proximately causing the

damages herein alleged.

25. At all relevant times, Defendant ratified each and every act or

omission complained of herein. At all relevant times, Defendant, aided and abetted

the acts and omissions as alleged herein.

PLAINTIFF’S FACTS

26. On or around September 12, 2017, Plaintiff purchased tickets for an

event advertised on Defendant’s internet webpage. Defendant represents the

tickets and associated price for the tickets was not speculative, as it is against its

selling policy.

27. Speculative selling is the selling of tickets without actual possession

of or the express option and right to purchase the tickets being sold. Thus, the

speculative seller obtains orders for tickets and then goes and buys tickets on the

marketplace in order to fill its orders. Defendant’s terms and services explicitly

declare and state that it does not permit speculative selling.

28. At the time of the purchase, Plaintiff believed that the price set for the

tickets was the definitive worth of the tickets and not a speculative price and that

Defendant has possession of the tickets it sold.

29. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff used Defendant’s

service to purchase tickets for an event.

30. On or around September 13, 2017, Plaintiff discovered that the

producers of the event, for which Plaintiff purchased tickets from Defendant,

began to sell pre-sale tickets for that specific event. The producers of the event

informed Plaintiff that tickets for the event did not begin to go on sale until that

day.


Page 6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31. Plaintiff’s paid Defendant approximately three (3) times more for the

speculative tickets, than he would have if Plaintiff purchased the tickets from the

producers of the event or their agents.

32. As a result of Defendant’s speculative selling, Plaintiff experienced

an economic loss, by paying an inflated price for tickets that had yet to be marketed

to the public and that Defendant was speculating on.

33. Had Plaintiff known that Defendant would engage in speculative

selling of the tickets, he would not have used Defendant’s service.

34. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not discover, nor could he have discovered,

the true nature and quality of the service until after Plaintiff transacted with

Defendant for the purchase of the tickets.

35. Defendant specifically represents that it sells event tickets when they

have officially been placed in the market and it does not engage in speculative

selling of tickets for any event listed within their service.

36. For the purchase, Plaintiff paid more than valuable consideration.

Plaintiff relied on the fact that the tickets Defendant advertised on its service to be

of a particular nature and quality, namely that Defendant sold the tickets and did

not engage in speculative selling, at the time Plaintiff used the service. Plaintiff

was never informed, in writing, orally, or in any conspicuous manner, that Plaintiff

was speculatively purchasing tickets to an event, for which tickets had yet to be

announced to go on sale.

37. When completing the purchase with Defendant, Defendant

guaranteed Plaintiff that he purchased for a particular event and that the tickets

had gone on sale. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s statements about the nature and

quality of the tickets advertised, in deciding whether to use Defendant’s service

for the purchase of tickets for events. Plaintiff felt assured by Defendant that

service as represented by Defendant, namely that Plaintiff purchased tickets for a


Page 7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

particular event that were actually available and not speculative. Plaintiff would

not have agreed to purchase tickets through Defendant’s service if he had known

that Defendant engages in actions contrary to what Defendant represents in their

terms and conditions.

38. Defendant never informed Plaintiff that its service sells tickets for

events speculatively, it does not actually have in its possession or access to tickets,

nor did Plaintiff provide his consent transacting with Defendant for such a

limitation.

39. Knowledge of the true nature and quality of Defendant’s service

would have impacted Plaintiff’s decision to utilize this specific service from

Defendant over other vendors. Plaintiff would have found it important to his

purchase decision to know exactly what he was purchasing, and he believed that

he was purchasing tickets for a particular event and not paying a speculative price.

This much is demonstrated by the fact that Defendant specifically represented that

the tickets were sold as a pre-sale.

40. Plaintiff felt ripped off and cheated by Defendant providing a service

that was different in nature and quality than that which Defendant represented.

Plaintiff believes that Defendant will continue its action of duping consumers into

purchasing their service that deviates significantly from Defendant’s

representations, namely in the form of telling consumers that their service sells

tickets that are not speculative, when it in fact is speculative, unless Defendant’s

practices are halted by way of an injunction.

41. As a result of Defendant’s fraudulent practices, described herein,

Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, wasted time, and anxiety.

42. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that it is Defendant’s policy

and practice to misrepresent the true nature and quality of its application regarding

the uses and functions of the service. Plaintiff asserts that this practice constitutes


Page 8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a fraudulent omission of a material fact relating to the nature and quality of its

service that would be important to a reasonable consumer to know at the time they

purchase tickets through Defendant’s service.

43. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendant’s policy and

practice is to materially misrepresent the nature and quality of its platform, through

said fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations, to induce consumers to

reasonably rely on the said misrepresentations, in order to induce their purchase

of tickets through their platform over law abiding competitors.

44. Defendant has a duty to disclose the true nature and quality of its

services, including whether tickets have actually gone on sale or not, to consumers

prior to the time they agree to purchase the tickets through Defendant’s service.

Defendant has a duty to disclose this material information of their service because

such information would be highly important to a reasonable consumer.

45. Such sales tactics rely on falsities and have a tendency to mislead and

deceive a reasonable consumer.

46. Defendant expressly represented to Plaintiff, through written

statements, the true nature and quality of its service.

47. Plaintiff alleges that such representations were part of a common

scheme to mislead consumers and incentivize them to purchase tickets through

Defendant’s service.

48. In purchasing the Class Products, Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s

representations.

49. Such representations were clearly false because the true nature and

quality of the service was different than represented.

50. Plaintiff would not have purchased the service if he knew that the

above-referenced statements made by Defendant were false.

51. Had Defendant properly marketed, advertised, and represented the


Page 9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Products, Plaintiff would not have purchased the products.

52. Plaintiff agreed to give his money, attention, and time to Defendant

because of the nature and quality of the service advertised. Defendant benefited

from falsely advertising the nature and quality of its service. Defendant benefited

on the loss to Plaintiff and provided nothing of benefit to Plaintiff in exchange.

53. Had Defendant properly marketed, advertised, and represented the

Class Products, no reasonable consumer who purchased or attempted to purchase

the service would have believed that Defendant was actually selling tickets on pre-

sale and not engaging in speculative selling of event tickets.

54. Defendant’s acts and omissions were intentional, and resulted from

Defendant’s desire to mislead consumers into purchasing tickets using

Defendant’s service than consumers and the State of California would find

acceptable.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

55. Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 23.

56. The class Plaintiff seeks to represent (the “Class”) is defined as

follows: All consumers, who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, purchased the Class Products.

57. As used herein, the term “Class Members” shall mean and refer to the

members of the Class described above.

58. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its affiliates, employees,

agents, and attorneys, and the Court.

59. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class, and to add additional

subclasses, if discovery and further investigation reveals such action is warranted.


Page 10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

60. Upon information and belief, the proposed class is composed of

thousands of persons. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of

all members would be unfeasible and impractical.

61. No violations alleged in this complaint are contingent on any

individualized interaction of any kind between Class members and Defendant.

62. Rather, all claims in this matter arise from the identical, false,

affirmative representations of the services, when in fact, such representations were

false.

63. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Class Members

that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including but

not limited to:

(a) Whether Defendant engaged in unlawful, unfair, or deceptive

business practices in selling Class Products to Plaintiff and

other Class Members;

(b) Whether Defendant made misrepresentations with respect to

the Class Products sold to consumers;

(c) Whether Defendant profited from the sale of the wrongly

advertised Class Products;

(d) Whether Defendant violated California Bus. & Prof. Code §

17200, et seq., and California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et

seq.,;

(e) Whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to equitable

and/or injunctive relief;

(f) Whether Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive

practices harmed Plaintiff and Class Members; and

(g) The method of calculation and extent of damages for Plaintiff

and Class Members.


Page 11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

64. Plaintiff is a member of the Class he seeks to represent

65. The claims of Plaintiff are not only typical of all Class members, they

are identical.

66. All claims of Plaintiff and the Class are based on the exact same legal

theories.

67. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Class.

68. Plaintiff is qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the

interests of each Class Member, because Plaintiff bought Class Products from

Defendant during the Class Period. Defendant’s unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent

actions concerns the same business practices described herein irrespective of

where they occurred or were experienced. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all Class

Members as demonstrated herein.

69. Plaintiff will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of the

Class, having retained qualified and competent legal counsel to represent herself

and the Class.

70. Common questions will predominate, and there will be no unusual

manageability issues.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the California False Advertising Act

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.)

71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation set forth above as

fully set forth herein.

72. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17500,

et seq., it is unlawful to engage in advertising “which is untrue or misleading, and

which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to

be untrue or misleading . . . [or] to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made

or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not


Page 12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so

advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised.”

73. California Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq.’s

prohibition against false advertising extends to the use of false or misleading

written statements.

74. Defendant misled consumers by making misrepresentations and

untrue statements about the Class Products, namely, Defendant sold tickets for

events that were of a nature and quality different than advertised, and made false

representations to Plaintiff and other putative class members in order to solicit

these transactions.

75. Defendant knew that its representations and omissions were untrue

and misleading, and deliberately made the aforementioned representations and

omissions in order to deceive reasonable consumers like Plaintiff and other Class

Members.

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misleading and false

advertising, Plaintiff and the other Class Members have suffered injury in fact and

have lost money or property, time, and attention. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon

Defendant’s representations regarding the Class Products. In reasonable reliance

on Defendant’s false advertisements, Plaintiff and other Class Members purchased

the Class Products. In turn, Plaintiff and other Class Members ended up with

Products that were overpriced and inaccurately marketed, and therefore Plaintiff

and other Class Members have suffered injury in fact.

77. Plaintiff alleges that these false and misleading representations made

by Defendant constitute a “scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property

or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated

therein, or as so advertised.”

78. Defendant advertised to Plaintiff and other putative class members,


Page 13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through written representations and omissions made by Defendant and its

employees that the Class Products would be of a particular nature and quality.

79. Thus, Defendant knowingly sold Class Products to Plaintiff and other

putative class members.

80. The misleading and false advertising described herein presents a

continuing threat to Plaintiff and the Class Members in that Defendant persists and

continues to engage in these practices, and will not cease doing so unless and until

forced to do so by this Court. Defendant’s conduct will continue to cause

irreparable injury to consumers unless enjoined or restrained. Plaintiff is entitled

to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendant to cease its

false advertising, as well as disgorgement and restitution to Plaintiff and all Class

Members Defendant’s revenues associated with their false advertising, or such

portion of those revenues as the Court may find equitable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation set forth above as

fully set forth herein.

82. Actions for relief under the unfair competition law may be based on

any business act or practice that is within the broad definition of the UCL. Such

violations of the UCL occur as a result of unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business

acts and practices. A plaintiff is required to provide evidence of a causal

connection between a defendants' business practices and the alleged harm--that is,

evidence that the defendants' conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial

injury. It is insufficient for a plaintiff to show merely that the Defendant’s conduct

created a risk of harm. Furthermore, the "act or practice" aspect of the statutory

definition of unfair competition covers any single act of misconduct, as well as


Page 14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ongoing misconduct.

UNFAIR

83. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any

“unfair . . . business act or practice.” Defendant’s acts, omissions,

misrepresentations, and practices as alleged herein also constitute “unfair”

business acts and practices within the meaning of the UCL in that its conduct is

substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, and is immoral,

unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous as the gravity of the conduct outweighs

any alleged benefits attributable to such conduct. There were reasonably available

alternatives to further Defendant’s legitimate business interests, other than the

conduct described herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to allege further conduct

which constitutes other unfair business acts or practices. Such conduct is ongoing

and continues to this date.

84. In order to satisfy the “unfair” prong of the UCL, a consumer must

show that the injury: (1) is substantial; (2) is not outweighed by any countervailing

benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) is not one that consumers themselves

could reasonably have avoided.

85. Here, Defendant’s conduct has caused and continues to cause

substantial injury to Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff and members of

the Class have suffered injury in fact due to Defendant’s decision to sell them

falsely described Class Products. Thus, Defendant’s conduct has caused

substantial injury to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.

86. Moreover, Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein solely benefits

Defendant while providing no benefit of any kind to any consumer. Such deception

utilized by Defendant convinced Plaintiff and members of the Class that the Class

Products were a certain nature and quality in order to induce them to spend money

on said Class Products. In fact, knowing that Class Products were not of this nature


Page 15


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and quality, Defendant unfairly profited from their sale. Thus, the injury suffered

by Plaintiff and the members of the Class is not outweighed by any countervailing

benefits to consumers.

87. Finally, the injury suffered by Plaintiff and members of the Class is

not an injury that these consumers could reasonably have avoided. After

Defendant falsely represented the Class Products, Plaintiff and class members

suffered injury in fact due to Defendant’s sale of Class Products to them.

Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to inform Plaintiff and class members

that the Class Products were not advertised as having the nature and quality that

they in fact have. As such, Defendant took advantage of Defendant’s position of

perceived power in order to deceive Plaintiff and the Class members to purchase

tickets for events through Defendant’s service when in fact the tickets were not in

Defendant’s possession and Defendant engages in speculative selling, as

prohibited by their terms and conditions. Therefore, the injury suffered by Plaintiff

and members of the Class is not an injury which these consumers could reasonably

have avoided.

88. Thus, Defendant’s conduct has violated the “unfair” prong of

California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

FRAUDULENT

89. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any

“fraudulent ... business act or practice.” In order to prevail under the “fraudulent”

prong of the UCL, a consumer must allege that the fraudulent business practice

was likely to deceive members of the public.

90. The test for “fraud” as contemplated by California Business and

Professions Code § 17200 is whether the public is likely to be deceived. Unlike

common law fraud, a § 17200 violation can be established even if no one was

actually deceived, relied upon the fraudulent practice, or sustained any damage.


Page 16


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91. Here, not only were Plaintiff and the Class members likely to be

deceived, but these consumers were actually deceived by Defendant. Such

deception is evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff agreed to purchase Class Products

under the basic assumption that Defendant sold tickets actually in its possession

and was not engaged in speculative selling, when in fact that was not the case.

Plaintiff’s reliance upon Defendant’s deceptive statements is reasonable due to the

unequal bargaining powers of Defendant and Plaintiff. For the same reason, it is

likely that Defendant’s fraudulent business practice would deceive other members

of the public.

92. As explained above, Defendant deceived Plaintiff and other Class

Members by representing the Class Products as being a certain nature and quality

when in reality they were a significantly different, and thus falsely represented the

Class Products.

93. Thus, Defendant’s conduct has violated the “fraudulent” prong of

California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

UNLAWFUL

94. California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

prohibits “any unlawful…business act or practice.”

95. As explained above, Defendant deceived Plaintiff and other Class

Members by representing the Class Products as being of a nature and quality

different from what they actually were.

96. Defendant used false advertising, marketing, and misrepresentations

to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase the Class Products, in violation

of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.. Had

Defendant not falsely advertised, marketed, or misrepresented the Class Products,

Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the Class Products.

Defendant’s conduct therefore caused and continues to cause economic harm to


Page 17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff and Class Members.

97. This practice of making these representations by Defendant is

therefore an “unlawful” business practice or act under Business and Professions

Code Section 17200 et seq.

98. Defendant has thus engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent

business acts entitling Plaintiff and Class Members to judgment and equitable

relief against Defendant, as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. Additionally,

pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff and Class

Members seek an order requiring Defendant to immediately cease such acts of

unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and requiring Defendant to

correct its actions.

MISCELLANEOUS

99. Plaintiff and Class Members allege that they have fully complied with

all contractual and other legal obligations and fully complied with all conditions

precedent to bringing this action or that all such obligations or conditions are

excused.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

100. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, requests the following

relief:

(a) An order certifying the Class and appointing Plaintiff as

Representative of the Class;

(b) An order certifying the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

(c) An order requiring VIVID SEATS, LLC, at its own cost, to

notify all Class Members of the unlawful and deceptive

conduct herein;

(d) An order requiring VIVID SEATS, LLC to engage in

corrective advertising regarding the conduct discussed above;


Page 18


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(e) Actual damages suffered by Plaintiff and Class Members as

applicable or full restitution of all funds acquired from Plaintiff

and Class Members from the sale of misbranded Class Products

during the relevant class period;

(f) Punitive damages, as allowable, in an amount determined by

the Court or jury;

(g) All reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs provided

by statute, common law or the Court’s inherent power;

(h) Pre- and post-judgment interest; and

(i) All other relief, general or special, legal and equitable, to which

Plaintiff and Class Members may be justly entitled as deemed

by the Court.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

101. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury as to all claims so triable.

Dated: March 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC

By: /s/Todd M. Friedman TODD M. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.

Attorney for Plaintiff TODD GIESEA


Page 19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit A


JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF

Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of

Overpayment Of Veteran’s Benefits

151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans (Excludes Veterans)

153 Recovery of Overpayment

of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’

Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product

Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury -Medical

Malpractice

CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/

Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities–

Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 448 Education

PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury – Product

Liability 367 Health Care/

Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property

Damage 385 Property Damage Product

Liability

PRISONER PETITIONS

HABEAS CORPUS 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty

OTHER 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee–

Conditions of Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC § 881

690 Other

LABOR710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management

Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement

Income Security Act

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization

Application 465 Other Immigration

Actions

422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC

§ 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 835 Patent Abbreviated New

Drug Application 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or

Defendant) 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC

§ 7609

375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

§ 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced &

Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/

Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information

Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original Proceeding

2 Removed from State Court

3 Remanded from Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or Reopened

5 Transferred from Another District (specify)

6 Multidistrict Litigation–Transfer

8 Multidistrict Litigation–Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF

ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT: CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

TODD GIESEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situatedVIVID SEATS LLC, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive,

San Francisco

Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780Woodland Hills, CA 91367; (877) 206-4741

28 U.S.C. § 1332 et seq.

Diversity Jurisdiction

✔ 5,000,000.00

03/22/2018 s/Todd M. Friedman

Case 4:18-cv-01776-YGR Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 2

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, useonly the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)

c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment).”

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.

(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.

(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.

(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC § 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.

Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 4:18-cv-01776-YGR Document 1-1 Filed 03/22/18 Page 2 of 2

Documents

Meghan E. George (SBN 274525) LAW OFFICES OF TODD M ... · Defendant VIVID SEATS, LLC is a Delaware corporation and headquartered in Illinois. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes,